Russell Baker <rebphoto@pronetisp.net> wrote/replied to: >Just don't tell me that I can't produce a quality product with a properly >exposed jpeg. Of course you 'can', but I like having better odds. >Every article/book I have ever read on digital has told me the same >thing.... Huh? That you 'can' with lots of in camera futzing? >"Don't shoot with the idea of fixing it in PS, get it right when you do the >original photo." Nothing worse than futzing with the camera while shooting. I mean we all have enough futzing to do, so my idea is to minimize the futzing. RAW allows me to do that. So you shoot JPG basically because you can't afford a big CF card. Let's face it, if you had a 2 gig card you could shoot hundreds of RAW files as you do now in JPG. But you'd futz less and get better results. If you get breaks in the performances I'd even suggest an image tank to dump your shots to. Cheaper and very handy. Have you ever had to adjust a JPG so much that the histogram starts to break up? You'd be amazed how much you can adjust a 16 bit TIF before it starts to break up. Oh, and if you've ever wanted to convert to black and white, a 16 bit TIF is definitely the way to start out ...
